Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Andrew,I stand by what I said. It's another way of saying, as you did, that, "ethics simply is not part of science," or, "science, the definition of science, is not concerned with ethics or motivation."I could go a bit further than you and say, "science deliberately excludes ethics and morality from its field of view." Would you agree with that? It means the same thing.

Kim

I would disagree if I am correct that when you say 'deliberately' you mean that science (as opposed to scientists) should include ethics in its field of view which to me is the same thing as saying that mathematics should include ethics in its field of view or that we should consider whether its more ethical to call trees trees instead of gurglons or some other arbitrary arrangement of syllables, vowels and consonants. None of those statements really makes sense because ethics has nothing to do with it. Science and mathematics, unlike religion and philosophy, do not make any suggestions about how people should live, one can USE science to help determine ways to live that are conducive to longevity and health but it does not say anything about oughts or ought nots, however, it can be useful in providing the knowledge necessary to make inferences such as "I probably should not drink mercury or jump off a cliff IF I want to live and I definitely ought not put my small child on top of a metal pole when there's a lightning storm going on IF I want my baby to live". 2+2 does not equal Don't Kill and the fact that atoms can be split thus releasing huge quantities of energy says nothing about whether humans deserve to live or die or neither. Science doesn't deal with those things and by definition it never will.

I would honestly appreciate it if you would elaborate on what you really meant. You are absolutely correct in your response to Alex when you point out that religion and science often ask and answer totally different questions and the fact is that science, I repeat, by definition, does not ask questions pertaining to whether something is right or wrong (ethics). Have a good one

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Andrew,I stand by what I said. It's another way of saying, as you did, that, "ethics simply is not part of science," or, "science, the definition of science, is not concerned with ethics or motivation."I could go a bit further than you and say, "science deliberately excludes ethics and morality from its field of view." Would you agree with that? It means the same thing.

Kim

I would disagree if I am correct that when you say 'deliberately' you mean that science (as opposed to scientists) should include ethics in its field of view which to me is the same thing as saying that mathematics should include ethics in its field of view or that we should consider whether its more ethical to call trees trees instead of gurglons or some other arbitrary arrangement of syllables, vowels and consonants. None of those statements really makes sense because ethics has nothing to do with it. Science and mathematics, unlike religion and philosophy, do not make any suggestions about how people should live, one can USE science to help determine ways to live that are conducive to longevity and health but it does not say anything about oughts or ought nots, however, it can be useful in providing the knowledge necessary to make inferences such as "I probably should not drink mercury or jump off a cliff IF I want to live and I definitely ought not put my small child on top of a metal pole when there's a lightning storm going on IF I want my baby to live". 2+2 does not equal Don't Kill and the fact that atoms can be split thus releasing huge quantities of energy says nothing about whether humans deserve to live or die or neither. Science doesn't deal with those things and by definition it never will.

I would honestly appreciate it if you would elaborate on what you really meant. You are absolutely correct in your response to Alex when you point out that religion and science often ask and answer totally different questions and the fact is that science, I repeat, by definition, does not ask questions pertaining to whether something is right or wrong (ethics). Have a good one

Okay, Andrew, one more try I don't mean that science 'should include ethics in its field of view' at all.However, the fact - which I know you accept - is that it excludes ethics from its field of view. In its own terms, it does so to maintain 'objectivity', rational discourse and 'impartiality' - all good reasons. There is nothing wrong with that so long as everyone knows that it is a limitation. After all, you don't expect a hammer to be a screwdriver as well, do you?However (as my suggest) it fails. And it fails precisely because it has ruled ethics, morality and subjectivity to be unexaminable within its own framework, because that means that a scientist, acting as a scientist, cannot ask himself why he is interested in one problem rather than another, why he asks one question rather than another, or why he observes one aspect of a situation and not another. A good parallel is the way of your typical nineteenth century politicians asked which men should be allowed to vote - and didn't even realise that they were excluding half the adult population. Their question was not objective or impartial, however much they thought it was, but blinkered.

I was interrupted halfway through writing this. I hope it still makes sense.

zavk wrote:such a question already begins with the assumption that 'the religious' is inherently 'problematic' and necessarily at odds with 'Buddhism'.

So, creationism is the example. It is not an assumption to say that this renders an irredeemably skewed view of life's development on this planet, given what is scientifically known. So there is an immediate and overt contradiction, not an assumption of one. It is observable right there in the competing claims, and is not fueled by a religion-v-science dichotomy; creationism and the backbone of the life sciences - evolution - are simply incompatible. Therefore, creationism is problematically (because flawed) religious (because based on such a text).

This question is not informed by such a thing as "science is obviously at odds with religion...". It is prompted by the abject failure of creationism in the face of a stronger explanation. So the phrase "problematically religious" has caused some warning bells, but it's just a phrase referring to this sort of issue. Getting lost in a mire of ideological dialogue is to miss this point. Depending on context, we might just as well say "problematically cultural" (female circumcision; whaling), and so forth.

You can even drop the second word, and stick with simply "problematic". It isn't about whether science can prove this or that aspect of ones favored worldview, it's about what science has demonstrated as against competing explanatory claims for the same thing.

Is there anything like that in the Dhamma, in the first place?

As far as assumptions of the extraordinary as fact go, Buddhism has oodles. Whether it is the myth of rebirth, or paranormal jhānic advertisements; these only become an issue of religion vs. science when the later-day – most likely Western – Buddhist feels the need to defend these as fact. Then it’s Ptolemy's Epicycles all over again.

“Worms look out of the eyes of the very rich and all the platitudes about them are true.” – Venerable Ñāṇamoli (A Thinkers Notebook, 1946)

daverupa wrote:We might go on for a long time in this way; but nevermind this dichotomy of science vs. religion. Where is there an aspect of the Dhamma which requires explanations which are contradicted by a scientific explanation? Are there any at all?

daverupa wrote:We might go on for a long time in this way; but nevermind this dichotomy of science vs. religion. Where is there an aspect of the Dhamma which requires explanations which are contradicted by a scientific explanation? Are there any at all?

What about Kamma?

Kammic mouvement is the inertia of energy

If we push a ball, he will continue his mouvement by a law of inertia. When this energy of pushing is and, ball stop his mouvement, if we push again and again, he will continue his mouvement.Sabbe dhamma anatta

What is energy? We have energy if we make a wave who move from 0 to -1, from -1 to 0, from 0 to +1, from +1 to 0 etc.. Sabbe dhamma aniccaSabbe dhamma dukkha

All the energy is drawn to calmAll dhamma are seeking for nibbana, like all waves comes to the ground, conditioned by the ground, and cannot exist without the ground.

daverupa wrote:We might go on for a long time in this way; but nevermind this dichotomy of science vs. religion. Where is there an aspect of the Dhamma which requires explanations which are contradicted by a scientific explanation? Are there any at all?

What about Kamma?

Kammic mouvement is the inertia of energy

If we push a ball, he will continue his mouvement by a law of inertia. When this energy of pushing is and, ball stop his mouvement, if we push again and again, he will continue his mouvement.Sabbe dhamma anatta

What is energy? We have energy if we make a wave who move from 0 to -1, from -1 to 0, from 0 to +1, from +1 to 0 etc.. Sabbe dhamma aniccaSabbe dhamma dukkha

All the energy is drawn to calmAll dhamma are seeking for nibbana, like all waves comes to the ground, conditioned by the ground, and cannot exist without the ground.

Yes, this is an analogy which enables us to make sense of what the Buddha says about Kamma, in terms of what looks like Newtonian physics. It might be a useful and beneficial thing to believe. But the issue arising from the article (and from Taylor's work) is how we are to make sense of claims that Kamma has a moral dimension, or that it determines future experiences.

"Here, student, some woman or man is one who harms beings with his hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is sickly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to sickness, that is to say, to be one who harms beings with one's hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives.

Most scientists would be inclined to see action as mere behaviour; and even if they don't, they would say that the results of actions are discernible in terms of purely physical changes. Harming with hands or clods etc. would have an impact upon matter, but the scientific world-view (which is what Taylor is, I think concerned with) would struggle to make any sense of the quote above.

DAWN wrote:So for a religious man, his Holy Book, is like a LHC for a scientific theoreticien.

Of course when it comes to psychology, no problem. Hard Science studies one area, Dhamma is another. When it comes to psychology, then Dhamma is the best.

But when it goes into natural field (ex: cosmology) which hard science studies as well, then we can have problems. Science, in principle, operates on evidence. The more evidence something has, the more I believe in that.

If someone would say: "You must believe and worship Zeus who lives on Jupiter. If you don't believe him, then after death you will go to Hades for eternity!" Is it reasonable to ask for the evidence? Of course. Is it close mindedness to ignore such things, unless there is good evidence?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

To Sam Vara:It's true that tey dont understand that all fenomena,internal and external, all dhamma, is energy, and so is leaded by the same law that all other energy. And it's a shame that peopels dont have the open mind

DAWN wrote:So for a religious man, his Holy Book, is like a LHC for a scientific theoreticien.

Of course when it comes to psychology, no problem. Hard Science studies one area, Dhamma is another. When it comes to psychology, then Dhamma is the best.

But when it goes into natural field (ex: cosmology) which hard science studies as well, then we can have problems. Science, in principle, operates on evidence. The more evidence something has, the more I believe in that.

If someone would say: "You must believe and worship Zeus who lives on Jupiter. If you don't believe him, then after death you will go to Hades for eternity!" Is it reasonable to ask for the evidence? Of course. Is it close mindedness to ignore such things, unless there is good evidence?

Science and The Dhamma study interactions between objects(dhammas), but by different way, external and enternal. But dhammas still the sames for both, it's all energy, so them have the same interactions, both internal or external dhammas, both to phisician or meditator.

So if we understood interactions by internal way, we can understand the external way, how apeares planets etc.

Scientific world seek for a "Law of All", that will explain ALL.The Buddha has found this Law of All, and the one who knows this law of all, the Nibbaha, the True Dhamma, he can explain all dhammas, planets, Bozon Higgs or other. It's like be on the highest mountant and see all around without necessarily visiting that places, or study that in scool. All dhammas have the same interactions, leaded by the same Law

Also, ancient peoples uses words and images, and metaphors to describe interactions of this world, and scienctists uses words and numbers to discribe the same interactions.

DAWN wrote:To Sam Vara:It's true that tey dont understand that all fenomena,internal and external, all dhamma, is energy, and so is leaded by the same law that all other energy. And it's a shame that peopels dont have the open mind

Scientists do understand that all phenomena are energy; but the problem posed by the original article is that they would not have a worldview which could accommodate the types of energy transformation which make Kamma important in Buddhism.

DAWN wrote:To Sam Vara:It's true that tey dont understand that all fenomena,internal and external, all dhamma, is energy, and so is leaded by the same law that all other energy. And it's a shame that peopels dont have the open mind

Scientists do understand that all phenomena are energy; but the problem posed by the original article is that they would not have a worldview which could accommodate the types of energy transformation which make Kamma important in Buddhism.

Kamma is the logic.Kamma is chain of cause and effect, it's a logic chain, and this logic is used by scientifist to makes their experiances.

Perharps they dont understant kamma law, but kamma law is their job. That is called ignorance.

Perharps they dont understant kamma law, but kamma law is their job. That is called ignorance.

Possibly so. But the fact that it is ignorance seems to support my initial suggestion that kamma is a "problematically religious" component which eludes the modern scientific worldview. The "immanent frame" which informs scientific enquiry steers it away from such matters.

Perharps they dont understant kamma law, but kamma law is their job. That is called ignorance.

Possibly so. But the fact that it is ignorance seems to support my initial suggestion that kamma is a "problematically religious" component which eludes the modern scientific worldview. The "immanent frame" which informs scientific enquiry steers it away from such matters.

It's true.

Infact, this misunderstandind between science and religion is caused by attachement to name-and-form, kamma is logic, but cause it's named kamma, and cause it's named logic, cause peoples dont watch into interaction, dont watch the true nature of fenomena, but just his name-and-form, an misunderstanding arise.

All misunderstanding betwen science and religion is a great lesson of name-and-form attachement. The one who want to penetrate into this attachement, must to investigate it by taking dialogue between religion and science.

Rebirth and paranormal jhana(-realms? this isn't terribly clear) are decent candidates. Kamma as well, but that changes depending on how the word gets used, though most people do seem to attach it to rebirth, leaving us with two topics of note.

And they comprise two of the longest threads on this site, as well as cropping up fairly often otherwise. Well, that's interesting...

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Perharps they dont understant kamma law, but kamma law is their job. That is called ignorance.

Possibly so. But the fact that it is ignorance seems to support my initial suggestion that kamma is a "problematically religious" component which eludes the modern scientific worldview. The "immanent frame" which informs scientific enquiry steers it away from such matters.

Kamma is what we believe in. You can't take it into a lab and measure it. Beyond events that occur we can't see kamma or its results. We just see physical, biological, chemical, social, psychological processes. There is no way we can be truly certain that misfortune that happened today was result of some bad kamma done Aeons ago. It is a belief not scientifically verifiable.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

daverupa wrote:Rebirth and paranormal jhana(-realms? this isn't terribly clear) are decent candidates. Kamma as well, but that changes depending on how the word gets used, though most people do seem to attach it to rebirth, leaving us with two topics of note.

And they comprise two of the longest threads on this site, as well as cropping up fairly often otherwise. Well, that's interesting...

"If he wants, he wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. He can witness this for himself whenever there is an opening."

Perharps they dont understant kamma law, but kamma law is their job. That is called ignorance.

Possibly so. But the fact that it is ignorance seems to support my initial suggestion that kamma is a "problematically religious" component which eludes the modern scientific worldview. The "immanent frame" which informs scientific enquiry steers it away from such matters.

Kamma is what we believe in. You can't take it into a lab and measure it. Beyond events that occur we can't see kamma or its results. We just see physical, biological, chemical, social, psychological processes. There is no way we can be truly certain that misfortune that happened today was result of some bad kamma done Aeons ago. It is a belief not scientifically verifiable.

'Mesure' it self use kamma, because it's compare before and after, cause and effect, so by mesuring kamma they will use kamma

'Just physical... etc... process' - is kamma. The word 'process' is kamma; becuse 'process' is a chain of causes and effects

When i take a ball, when i drop him, when he flyes, and when he fall down - i can see kamma processWhen i take water, when i put it on the fire, when it's makes hot, and when its evaporate - i can see reberth

That is consern 'we can't see kamma or it's results' - the taught is material, you can try and see by yourself, and The Buddha approuved that our taught is material in Dhammapada 1 and 2. And quantum physics law approuved it to. If you can't see, it's not means that nobody can't see, it's means that you dont beleave that you can see, or yu never try to see that.

Ah yes! Without being too cheeky, might we put the first two of the three knowledges in this category as well?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Kamma is what we believe in. You can't take it into a lab and measure it. Beyond events that occur we can't see kamma or its results. We just see physical, biological, chemical, social, psychological processes. There is no way we can be truly certain that misfortune that happened today was result of some bad kamma done Aeons ago. It is a belief not scientifically verifiable.

Yes, this is my point, and what the article is looking at. Enlightened beings aside, we do not have this knowledge. And as such, it is outside the scope of what science deals with. "What's at stake", as the title has it, is the possibility that a modern secular sensibility which values this stance will simply give up on the notion of Kamma. Stephen Batchelor, for example, appears to have taken this path, and there are many, albeit less eloquent, who accompany him.